Isn't it about time to establish scientifically driven government policy?

[donttread]

Lets take three examples
1) "The War on Drugs" By any measurable standard has been a complete and utter failure. I personally am against prohibition altogether. But this thread is not about my opinion. You may be all for prohibition . If so how could we change our approach so that policy actually limited drug availability, reduced over dose deaths and flowed less money to gangs and cartels? We have been trying the same thing for 40 years and expecting different results. Whether you are anti prohibition or pro-prohibition clearly what we are doing now isn't working. What should we change? Do you have any scientific or real world support for your ideas for change?
2) Similarly ," The War on Poverty" has failed by any scientific standard. Decades of this war have produced documented INCREASES in the number of poor people and we have tens of millions of working Americans who still cannot get by without government assistance. Personally, I believe in a cashless welfare system where you would live in designated housing, shop at food pantries and attend dedicated heath care clinics. You may disagree. How can we approach the problem differently? Better "hand up" vs " handout" programs? Make work projects? What can you find for a solution that has worked elsewhere in the real world?
3) Lastly "The War on Terror" Most of you know that I am a non-interventionist who believes we should produce our own energy. You may have completely different beliefs. But surely you can see that real world evidence shows Iraq reverting to pre-war practices and several ME nations moving backwards socially with no documented decrease in the number of terrorist. How would you change our interventions to show some success that can be documented?
Thoughts.? Lets stop throwing good money after bad!

[zelmo1234]

I would say that we could do that, but you would have to use real science.

For an example in all three cases I would give the following.

War on Drugs. One would need to measure the cost of higher unemployment as there will be some that become addicted and will not be able to keep a job this could effect crime figures as well.

War on poverty. I totally agree that it is broken but with out the social safety net what would be the cost in increased crime, and incarceration.

War on Terror. What are the likely results of isolationism by the USA and does it lead to World War as it has in the past

[PattyHill]

isn't this a duplicate thread? Why don't you just bump this one?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/44648-Evidence-Based-Practices

[donttread]

I would say that we could do that, but you would have to use real science.

For an example in all three cases I would give the following.

War on Drugs. One would need to measure the cost of higher unemployment as there will be some that become addicted and will not be able to keep a job this could effect crime figures as well.

War on poverty. I totally agree that it is broken but with out the social safety net what would be the cost in increased crime, and incarceration.

War on Terror. What are the likely results of isolationism by the USA and does it lead to World War as it has in the past

There will not be any more addicts as our current policy does nothing to curb drug availability in any real way

Anyway so how would you change our interventionism to actually work?

[Mac-7]

There will not be any more addicts as our current policy does nothing to curb drug availability in any real way



Not everyone is a criminal who ignores laws they don't like.

when drugs are illegal most America's abstain from using them.

But if addictive drugs are made legal they will be used more and more people will be addicted.

[donttread]

Not everyone is a criminal who ignores laws they don't like.

when drugs are illegal most America's abstain from using them.

But if addictive drugs are made legal they will be used more and more people will be addicted.

See this is exactly what I am talking about. ?We have real world evidence from Portugal , for example, that your assumption is false.

[donttread]

isn't this a duplicate thread? Why don't you just bump this one?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/44648-Evidence-Based-Practices

No it's similar, but not the same.

[donttread]

I would say that we could do that, but you would have to use real science.

For an example in all three cases I would give the following.

War on Drugs. One would need to measure the cost of higher unemployment as there will be some that become addicted and will not be able to keep a job this could effect crime figures as well.

War on poverty. I totally agree that it is broken but with out the social safety net what would be the cost in increased crime, and incarceration.

War on Terror. What are the likely results of isolationism by the USA and does it lead to World War as it has in the past

You are obviously neither an isolationist nor a non-interventionist. So how would you suggest we use science and real world successes to make our interventions actually work for their stated purposes?

[Mister D]

See this is exactly what I am talking about. ?We have real world evidence from Portugal , for example, that your assumption is false.

Portugal is a tiny, relatively homogeneous country. What works in Portugal will not necessarily work in the US.

[donttread]

Portugal is a tiny, relatively homogeneous country. What works in Portugal will not necessarily work in the US.

So addicts are different in Portugal? Give me a break, our way doesn't even come close to working

[donttread]

It's amazing how many members resist using science to make choices. Splians a lot about our world actually. I think the best rationalization on this thread is Mr D's "But heroin is different in other countries" LOL. A rationalization truly worthy of an addict.

[Common Sense]

Science??? What, are you a godless commie???

[donttread]

Science??? What, are you a godless commie???

More of a deiist Libertarian actually

[Mister D]

It's amazing how many members resist using science to make choices. Splians a lot about our world actually. I think the best rationalization on this thread is Mr D's "But heroin is different in other countries" LOL. A rationalization truly worthy of an addict.

No, Mister D's comment was that drawing comparisons between tiny, homogenous countries and huge, diverse countries is problematic. For example, the welfare state works there. Not so much here. But you are one of the retards left in upstate NY so...

[donttread]

No, Mister D's comment was that drawing comparisons between tiny, homogenous countries and huge, diverse countries is problematic. For example, the welfare state works there. Not so much here. But you are one of the retards left in upstate NY so...

You might have a cultural point if our system worked at all, even a little, but it does not. So attempting the Portugal model could only help. BTW, this "retard form upstate NY" has always seen you for the insecure pompous acting asshole you really are.

[Mac-7]

It's amazing how many members resist using science to make choices. Splians a lot about our world actually. I think the best rationalization on this thread is Mr D's "But heroin is different in other countries" LOL. A rationalization truly worthy of an addict.

Social science us not real science.

[donttread]

Social science us not real science.

Actually it is. We can predict human behavior a lot better than a meterologist for example can predict the weather

[Mac-7]

Actually it is. We can predict human behavior a lot better than a meterologist for example can predict the weather

It doesn't take a scientist to predict human behavior.

In fact most wise people are not social science quacks but regular people.

And thanks to super computers and improved data gathering the weathermen are getting pretty good at making forcasts.

[Mister D]

You might have a cultural point if our system worked at all, even a little, but it does not. So attempting the Portugal model could only help. BTW, this "retard form upstate NY" has always seen you for the insecure pompous acting $#@! you really are.

Wait...you distort my comments, insult me, and I'm the asshole? Yeah, OK.

Anyway, it's problematic when you draw comparisons between two very different societies. The progressives do it when they tell us how much the Danes love their welfare state and the libertarians do it when they tell us all how successful drug legalization has been in Holland and Portugal. That's not to say I'm for or against legalization. It's to say that you're making a much weaker case than you think.

[donttread]

Wait...you distort my comments, insult me, and I'm the asshole? Yeah, OK.

Anyway, it's problematic when you draw comparisons between two very different societies. The progressives do it when they tell us how much the Danes love their welfare state and the libertarians do it when they tell us all how successful drug legalization has been in Holland and Portugal. That's not to say I'm for or against legalization. It's to say that you're making a much weaker case than you think.

Dude you called me a "retard" before I called you an asshole. The cross cultural comparision loses some of its merit when our system fails at so many levels that almost any progressive change would improve it

[Mister D]

Dude you called me a "retard" before I called you an $#@!. The cross cultural comparision loses some of its merit when our system fails at so many levels that almost any progressive change would improve it

Again, you distorted what I said and insulted me.


It's amazing how many members resist using science to make choices. Splians a lot about our world actually. I think the best rationalization on this thread is Mr D's "But heroin is different in other countries" LOL. A rationalization truly worthy of an addict.


That was you, right?

The cross cultural comparison has no merit. That's the point. Again, comparisons drawn between tiny, homogeneous countries and huge, diverse countries are inherently problematic. Because it works in Portugal does not necessarily mean it will work in the US.

[donttread]

Again, you distorted what I said and insulted me.



That was you, right?

The cross cultural comparison has no merit. That's the point. Again, comparisons drawn between tiny, homogeneous countries and huge, diverse countries are inherently problematic. Because it works in Portugal does not necessarily mean it will work in the US.

If you consider being called a rationalizer an insult then you need to see a dermatologist and get some skin treatment in order to make it thicker. Yes, it's difficult to transfer solutions from one culture to another but that certainly doesn't make it merritless. ESPECIALLY WHEN OUR SOLUTION COULD NOT POSSIBLY FAIL ANY WORSE

[Mister D]

If you consider being called a rationalizer an insult then you need to see a dermatologist and get some skin treatment in order to make it thicker. Yes, it's difficult to transfer solutions from one culture to another but that certainly doesn't make it merritless. ESPECIALLY WHEN OUR SOLUTION COULD NOT POSSIBLY FAIL ANY WORSE

If wish not to own up to your insult and dishonesty, that's OK.

It is without merit, donttread. I know it must have sounded like a devastating angle of attack when it first crossed your mind but it's not. Because it supposedly works in tiny, homogenous Portugal does not necessarily mean it will work here. It's just a bad argument. Find a better one.

[PattyHill]

If wish not to own up to your insult and dishonesty, that's OK.

It is without merit, donttread. I know it must have sounded like a devastating angle of attack when it first crossed your mind but it's not. Because it supposedly works in tiny, homogenous Portugal does not necessarily mean it will work here. It's just a bad argument. Find a better one.


On the other hand, theories are often tested on a small population before being extended to a bigger population. It may very well work here, at least in small states. And it may work if it's expanded. Refusing to consider the possibility is being a bit blind, isn't it?

[Mister D]

On the other hand, theories are often tested on a small population before being extended to a bigger population. It may very well work here, at least in small states. And it may work if it's expanded. Refusing to consider the possibility is being a bit blind, isn't it?

I'm not refusing to consider the possibility. I said that twice. I'm explaining to donttread that simply because something works in Europe does not necessarily mean it will work here.

[donttread]

If wish not to own up to your insult and dishonesty, that's OK.

It is without merit, donttread. I know it must have sounded like a devastating angle of attack when it first crossed your mind but it's not. Because it supposedly works in tiny, homogenous Portugal does not necessarily mean it will work here. It's just a bad argument. Find a better one.

So your "scientific" opinion is that nothing that works in one culture can working a larger culture.?

[Mister D]

So your "scientific" opinion is that nothing that works in one culture can working a larger culture.?

No. Didn't I just say that? Your reasoning is flawed. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.

[Dr. Who]

Not everyone is a criminal who ignores laws they don't like.

when drugs are illegal most America's abstain from using them.

But if addictive drugs are made legal they will be used more and more people will be addicted.
Look, I can only gauge that by my own experience. I tried a number of "illegal" drugs early in my life. I didn't like them. End of story. The fact that they were illegal had nothing to do with my decision to try them, nor do I expect that it really prevents anyone else from going there. You are either looking for drug addicted escapism or not. If you are, no amount of laws will prevent you from indulging in your drug of choice. All we end up doing is create a criminal underworld that is dedicated to supplying the drugs that people want. People who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. This is exactly what happened during Prohibition.

[donttread]

No. Didn't I just say that? Your reasoning is flawed. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.

Yeah, you pretty much did say that Something to the effect of "Potrugal has no merrit"

[Dr. Who]

If wish not to own up to your insult and dishonesty, that's OK.

It is without merit, donttread. I know it must have sounded like a devastating angle of attack when it first crossed your mind but it's not. Because it supposedly works in tiny, homogenous Portugal does not necessarily mean it will work here. It's just a bad argument. Find a better one.
Actually most European nations are becoming less and less homogeneous as time goes on. While North America is still the most ethnically mixed society, Europe is now also importing people due to a declining birth rate.

[Mister D]

Actually most European nations are becoming less and less homogeneous as time goes on. While North America is still the most ethnically mixed society, Europe is now also importing people due to a declining birth rate.

There is not a single European state even remotely as diverse as the US. Portugal, our example, has an immigrant population of some 4%. Most of them are white Europeans.

[Mister D]

Yeah, you pretty much did say that Something to the effect of "Potrugal has no merrit"

What?

[Dr. Who]

There is not a single European state even remotely as diverse as the US. Portugal, our example, has an immigrant population of some 4%. Most of them are white Europeans.
That is continually changing. Euro countries have the same low (white) birthrates as America. If they don't want to have inverse population growth, they have to allow outside immigration. Given that they are virtually all somewhat socialistic societies, the retiring generation needs a source of revenue to support pensions, so the only way to assure the continuity of government programs is to allow immigration to offset the low birthrate.

[Mister D]

That is continually changing. Euro countries have the same low (white) birthrates as America. If they don't want to have inverse population growth, they have to allow outside immigration. Given that they are virtually all somewhat socialistic societies, the retiring generation needs a source of revenue to support pensions, so the only way to assure the continuity of government programs is to allow immigration to offset the low birthrate. I'm sure you hope it is, Who. I'm sure you also believe grade school educated Mexicans will save Social Security. That's great and all but Portugal is a tiny homogenous country. Drawing comparisons between tiny, homogeneous European states and huge, diverse states like the US is inherently problematic.

[Dr. Who]

I'm sure you hope it is, Who. I'm sure you also believe grade school educated Mexicans will save Social Security. That's great and all but Portugal is a tiny homogenous country. Drawing comparisons between tiny, homogeneous European states and huge, diverse states like the US is inherently problematic.
I'm only drawing birthrate comparisons. Places like Portugal used to have high birthrates. That is no longer true. To ensure promised government pensions, you have to ensure at least a static population. If people are not reproducing sufficiently to create a static population size, you have a problem. Most countries are looking for more than a static population situation, particularly when they have built-in pension and welfare obligations.

[Mister D]

I'm only drawing birthrate comparisons. Places like Portugal used to have high birthrates. That is no longer true. To ensure promised government pensions, you have to ensure at least a static population. If people are not reproducing sufficiently to create a static population size, you have a problem. Most countries are looking for more than a static population situation, particularly when they have built-in pension and welfare obligations.

That's great, Who, but Portugal is a tiny, homogenous country. Drawing comparisons between tiny, homogeneous European states and huge, diverse states like the US is inherently problematic. I know you want to see our diseased model accepted by the world but that's neither here nor there.

[Dr. Who]

That's great, Who, but Portugal is a tiny, homogenous country. Drawing comparisons between tiny, homogeneous European states and huge, diverse states like the US is inherently problematic. I know you want to see our diseased model accepted by the world but that's neither here nor there.
I think the fact that they are inviting immigrants from third world nations speaks for itself. I'm not sitting on their shoulder encouraging them. It's happening in every European nation. So they might be where America was in the late 1800s in terms of immigration, but 100 years or so isn't much in the scheme of things. The era of homogeneous populations is waning. The better off people are, the fewer children they produce. The first world, in terms of homogeneous populations is a victim of its own success. Educated and well off people don't generally have more than two children. Some have none and some have three, but in general large families are a thing of the past. That translates to population inversion. That is a death sentence for any country.

[Mac-7]

I think the fact that they are inviting immigrants from third world nations speaks for itself. I'm not sitting on their shoulder encouraging them. It's happening in every European nation. So they might be where America was in the late 1800s in terms of immigration, but 100 years or so isn't much in the scheme of things. The era of homogeneous populations is waning. The better off people are, the fewer children they produce. The first world, in terms of homogeneous populations is a victim of its own success. Educated and well off people don't generally have more than two children. Some have none and some have three, but in general large families are a thing of the past. That translates to population inversion. That is a death sentence for any country.

I agree with the statement that uneducated Mexicans are not going to save America.

They will only drag us down faster.

[Dr. Who]

I agree with the statement that uneducated Mexicans are not going to save America.

They will only drag us down faster.
American immigration involves far more nationalities than Mexican.

[Mac-7]

American immigration involves far more nationalities than Mexican.

Thanks to chain migration Mexicans are the largest group of legal immigrants each year and they are the largest illegal alien group.

But you are correct that America is a magnet for many nationalities including Muslims from Burma who are such troublemakers in their home country that the Burmese want them gone and obumer wants to take them.


but I digress.

Yes, everyone interested in the subject knows its not just Mexicans

which is why I don't usually waste time like this explaining the obvious.

[lynn]

The war on drugs was never intended to be won. If it did, the justice system would shrink and many would be out of jobs. The prison system would also be affected as well as the state government.

[donttread]

The war on drugs was never intended to be won. If it did, the justice system would shrink and many would be out of jobs. The prison system would also be affected as well as the state government.

A lot of truth in that however, we need to start by holding them accountable for progressing towards their stated goals. If there defense becomes "we are lying bastards" then we got em by the short hairs